As a year of record-breaking temperatures and climate change-fuelled disasters draws to a close, nations are once again preparing to gather for another round of UN climate talks.
Several major international issues will be up for negotiation at COP28, which is taking place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) between 30 November and 12 December.
A two-year “global stocktake” to assess progress under the Paris Agreement will reach its conclusion, with officials discussing how it should inform future action. COP28 is also meant to get a new fund for climate change-induced “loss and damage” up and running.
The event’s location in a major petrostate and the choice of Sultan Al Jaber – chief executive of the state-owned oil company – as president, have sparked controversy.
Yet with fossil fuels under the spotlight, some nations will argue for an agreement on phasing them out in the coming years. There will also be calls for other global targets, including tripling renewable energy capacity.
In order to keep track of what everyone wants to get out of COP28, Carbon Brief has conducted its annual assessment of priority issues for various parties, compiled into the interactive table below. This is based on publicly available submissions to the UN and wider research conducted by Carbon Brief.
The first column shows the countries and UN negotiating blocs, the second column shows the topics up for debate and the third column indicates specific issues within those topics.
The final column indicates the position that each grouping is likely to take on a particular issue at the summit. This ranges from “high priority” – meaning the grouping is likely to be strongly pushing the issue – to “red line”, which means the grouping is likely to oppose this issue and show no room for compromise.
This is a living document that will be updated during the course of the summit. Please get in touch if you would like to offer additions to the table, by emailing policy@carbonbrief.org.
Explanations of the overarching issues and jargon-filled language that permeates the talks can be found below the interactive table.
Global stocktake
The centrepiece of COP28 negotiations will be the conclusion of the global stocktake, under which nations have evaluated their progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement (see Carbon Brief’s Q&A for more information).
One key COP28 outcome will be a “decision” text concerning the stocktake. This is intended to reflect on efforts so far and lay out what parties agree should happen going forward.
Parties have submitted their views on what they expect from this document, reflecting their own priorities. Given the all-encompassing nature of the stocktake, these submissions are as varied as the COP negotiations themselves.
They include proposals for how countries should increase the ambition of their climate plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), to align them with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C and well-below 2C warming target.
(As it stands, the stocktake has confirmed that countries must scale up both the ambition of their plans and their efforts to achieve them in order to meet the Paris goals.)
There are also proposals for how the stocktake should inform other aspects of UN negotiations, such as the global goal on adaptation and the new post-2025 climate finance target (see sections below).
In addition, the submissions provide an opportunity for nations to push for sector-specific targets that could help the world get on track for its climate goals.
These include some targets for global energy industries that have already gathered some momentum in the run-up to COP28 (see: Energy targets). However, they also include more country-specific preoccupations, such as Russia’s proposal that gas should be mentioned as a “transitional fuel” or Australia’s proposal for a global low-carbon hydrogen target.
Energy targets
Among the global stocktake submissions from parties are a handful of energy-sector targets that are likely to be a major focus at COP28. The UAE presidency has made “fast-tracking the energy transition and slashing emissions before 2030” one of its priorities for the event.
Perhaps chief among these proposals is the on-going discussion about phasing out or, at least, “phasing down” fossil fuels.
This topic has gained considerable traction since a mention of phasing down unabated coal power made it into the decision text at COP26 in 2021 – marking the first-ever COP decision targeting fossil fuels.
Support for a decision on phasing out all fossil fuels gained momentum at the COP27 summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2022, with around 80 countries getting on board. However, these efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.
The COP28 UAE presidency has stated that “phasing down demand for, and supply of, all fossil fuels is inevitable and essential”.
Some parties have said they will prioritise a complete fossil-fuel phaseout, while others have emphasised a phaseout only of “unabated” fossil fuels or rejected the idea entirely. Still others have pushed more specific targets such as an end to coal or fossil-fuel subsidies.
At the same time, global momentum has gathered behind a call to triple global renewable capacity, which was backed by the G20 group of major economies in September.
The idea has been promoted by the International Energy Agency and adopted by the COP28 presidency, along with another call to double the rate of energy-efficiency improvements.
Loss and damage
Another major issue at COP28 will be the “operationalisation” of the loss-and-damage fund.
The decision to set up this fund, after decades of pressure from developing countries, was widely regarded as one of the main achievements from last year’s COP27.
In the wake of the summit, a “transitional committee” of government officials from around the world was tasked with agreeing on a framework for the fund. This included deciding who should pay into it, who could draw money from it and where it would be based.
Over the following months, these negotiations revealed deep divides between developed and developing countries, which are reflected in Carbon Brief’s interactive table.
In particular, developing countries did not want the fund to be located at the US-dominated World Bank. They also wanted it to be accessible to all developing countries and primarily supported with grant-based finance from developed countries.
Meanwhile, developed countries wanted to ensure that the private sector, humanitarian groups and the wealthiest developing countries, such as China and Saudi Arabia, shared the burden of paying into the fund.
The transitional committee ultimately produced a draft framework that could be agreed at COP28. However, the US objected to the final outcome and the summit could see these issues reopened in negotiations.
Adaptation
Parties are also expected to adopt a framework for achieving the “global goal on adaptation” at COP28. Such a target was first set out in the Paris Agreement, but since then it has lacked a clear definition.
The process of “operationalising” the global goal is a priority for some developing countries, who argue that protecting people against the effects of climate change is given less attention than efforts to cut emissions.
Parties have laid out their visions for what the goal is and how progress towards it could be measured.
Finance is a central issue for adaptation, which tends to receive less funding overall than mitigation efforts. Some parties will likely push for references to a goal of doubling overall adaptation finance – first mentioned in the Glasgow Climate Pact that emerged from COP26 – and look for ways to link adaptation outcomes with the findings of the global stocktake.
Finance
Climate finance is always an important issue at COPs. Developing countries need trillions in annual investments to carry out their climate plans and transition to low-carbon economies.
At the UN climate talks in Bonn earlier this year, some developing countries made it clear that they did not want to discuss cutting emissions unless there was an equal focus on financial support.
Next year, countries are due to decide on a new, post-2025 global goal for providing developing countries with climate finance. There is still no official confirmation that developed countries have met the outstanding $100bn-per-year climate finance goal that they were meant to achieve in 2020.
These issues will loom over the COP28 talks as nations prepare the groundwork for the new target and discuss climate finance in relation to the global stocktake.
Other issues
Two more “work programmes” will continue at COP28.
The mitigation work programme, which focuses on how countries can scale up emissions-cutting efforts, has had two “global dialogues” this year. They specifically addressed just energy transitions in the power and transport sectors.
A decision on this at COP28 could help to take forward some of the work of the global stocktake and mobilise investment opportunities.
The other work programme on “just transition pathways” focuses specifically on how the objectives of the Paris Agreement can be achieved while ensuring a “just transition” for people around the world.
Countries will also continue with work to get Article 6 carbon markets up and running.
In particular, a “supervisory body” has been working on guidance for how the Article 6.4 carbon market should operate. Nations will need to approve these rules at COP28.
The post Interactive: Who wants what at the COP28 climate change summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interactive: Who wants what at the COP28 climate change summit
Carbon credit registry Verra has suspended activities by four auditors related to carbon credit projects they vetted in China which claimed bogus emission reductions.
In an unprecedented move, TÜV Nord, China Classification Society Certification Company, China Quality Certification Center and CTI Certification will be prevented from auditing agriculture and forestry offsetting schemes on Verra’s registry. For German certification giant TÜV Nord, the measures will only apply to its operations in China. It is the first time Verra has taken such measures.
The auditors certified the activities of 37 programmes that aimed to slash planet-heating methane gas releases from rice fields across China, resulting in the generation of millions of carbon offsets. But Verra revoked the projects in August 2024 after a 17-month review found a string of integrity failures that the auditors had failed to identify.
Before this week’s suspension, Climate Home previously reported on ten of these projects closely linked to energy company Shell and revealed evidence raising serious doubts over whether any emission-cutting activities had been carried out on the ground at all.
Nearly 2 million worthless carbon credits produced by the projects – and partly used to offset emissions from Shell’s gas business – still need to be compensated.
Auditors fail to course-correct
As it axed the projects last year, Verra told the four auditors to produce a “strong” action plan that would prevent similar failures from happening again. But Verra said on Tuesday the responses had proved to be inadequate, prompting it to slap suspension measures on the certifiers.
The suspension will be lifted only if the auditors address the issues and meet Verra’s reinstatement requirements.
“This decision was not made lightly, but Verra’s commitment to integrity means upholding the highest standards of quality and trust, and maintaining market confidence must come first,” Justin Wheler, Verra’s chief program management officer, said in a written statement.
Blowback for other projects
Voluntary carbon market standards like Verra rely heavily on external auditors to assess projects and their compliance with the rules, while the registry only gives the final stamp of approval. But auditors are picked and paid directly by project developers, something that, experts say, raises the risk of conflicts of interest.
Verra’s suspension will have immediate repercussions for projects that had contracted the services of any of the four auditors.
Verra said that it will not accept project registrations or requests to issue credits that rely on audits done by the certifiers affected by the measure. Those that have already undergone an audit carried out by suspended auditors will have to repeat the process with a new entity. A spokesperson for Verra told Climate Home at least 57 projects will be directly affected.
Hidden cost: How keeping climate data classified hurts developing countries
“While we recognize the impact of this suspension on affected projects, ensuring rigorous and credible validations and verifications is critical,” said Verra’s Wheler.
TÜV Nord is one of the world’s largest certification companies and, according to its website, it has vetted thousands of carbon credit projects both in the voluntary market and the United Nation’s Clean Development Mechanism. Climate Home has approached the company for comment.
China Classification Society Certification Company, China Quality Certification Center and CTI Certification are among China’s biggest certifiers of products and services, including emission reduction programmes.
Phantom credits still not compensated
Meanwhile, Verra has still been unable to obtain compensation for the 1.8 million worthless credits generated by ten rice farming projects that Shell directly supported in China. As Climate Home previously reported, the energy giant abandoned the projects soon after being informed that the sham offsets would need to be paid back.
The carbon credit registry sanctioned the project developer Hefei Luyu after the Chinese company failed to reply to Verra’s emails and compensate for the credits. But, in contrast, Verra has not taken any action against Shell – the world’s largest buyer of carbon offsets.
Shell used at least half a million credits produced by the Chinese rice farming projects to claim that shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) sold to clients were “carbon neutral”.
The post Carbon credit auditors suspended for failures in sham rice-farming offsets appeared first on Climate Home News.
Carbon credit auditors suspended for failures in sham rice-farming offsets
Climate Change
The Indigenous Climate Hub Launches New Podcast Series Amplifying Indigenous Voices on Climate Action
The Indigenous Climate Hub is proud to launch its new podcast series—a powerful digital storytelling platform designed to elevate, empower, and honour Indigenous climate change leadership across Turtle Island. Available now on Spotify (http://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/indigenous-climate-hub), this podcast series shares stories of Indigenous Peoples leading climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts, engaging in environmental stewardship, and applying traditional and ecological knowledge to address the climate crisis in their homelands.
With new episodes continuing throughout 2025, the podcast offers a growing collection of compelling interviews and narratives, highlighting the diverse and resilient responses of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities to climate-related challenges. These stories are deeply personal and powerful — and belong to the individuals and communities who share them.
“We are excited to create a podcast where Indigenous knowledge keepers, youth, land defenders, scientists, and community members can share their experiences in their own words,” says Indigenous Climate Hub podcast co-host Dr. Shyra Barberstock. “This podcast is about amplifying the voices of Indigenous Peoples on the frontlines of climate change — and those whose leadership offers solutions rooted in generations of wisdom.”
Call for Participants
The Indigenous Climate Hub podcast team is actively seeking Indigenous interviewees who want to share their stories of:
- Climate change adaptation and mitigation
- Environmental and land stewardship
- Traditional and ecological knowledge
- Community-based solutions and innovation
- Climate and land-based education
Sharing Indigenous stories through this podcast series is an opportunity to reach a national audience, inspire others, and contribute to a growing archive of Indigenous-led climate solutions. It’s also a chance to be part of a supportive network that values Indigenous voices, land-based knowledge, and leadership.
Join the Conversation
Your perspective matters whether you’re from a northern fly-in community or a southern urban centre. We want to hear from you if you’re an Indigenous person with a story to share.
To participate in the podcast or learn more, visit https://indigenousclimatehub.ca/podcast/. Follow us on Spotify to listen to new episodes and help amplify these vital stories by sharing them with your networks.
About the Indigenous Climate Hub
The Indigenous Climate Hub supports Indigenous Peoples and communities across Canada by providing tools, resources, and knowledge-sharing opportunities focused on climate change. The podcast is one of many initiatives designed to connect Indigenous voices and leadership in the face of the global climate crisis.
For media inquiries or to express interest in being featured on the podcast, please contact us using our Contact Form.
– The Indigenous Climate Hub
The post The Indigenous Climate Hub Launches New Podcast Series Amplifying Indigenous Voices on Climate Action appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
Rachel Santarsiero is the director of the National Security Archive’s Climate Change Transparency Project in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. intelligence apparatus has long monitored how climate change will affect U.S. national security interests in the coming decades.
Relying on a broad consensus of open-source scientific studies, modeling, and forecasts, the spy community has intermittently let the public in on its climate change agenda. In large part, however, its work on climate has been kept secret, leading to the disproportionate harm of the most vulnerable populations living in developing countries.
Last month, the Climate Change Transparency Project, an effort dedicated to tracking U.S. climate policy at the National Security Archive, a government watchdog nonprofit, reported on a climate change intelligence assessment that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has kept classified for 17 years.
“Forgotten” fragile states unite to end climate-finance blind spot
In 2008, a panel of intelligence officers produced a National Intelligence Assessment (NIA) which evaluated the “National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030,” and was one of the intelligence community’s first ever climate-focused assessments, a departure from its usual research on more “traditional” national security threats like state violence and terrorism.
Despite the assessment’s reliance on open-source resources, as outlined in a testimony given to Congress by lead study author Dr. Thomas Fingar, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) mandated its classification. In Fingar’s testimony to Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike advocated for the assessment’s declassification, with Democrats arguing that the report could inform government agencies and private industries about the risks of climate change, and Republicans arguing that its reliance on open-source information didn’t contribute anything new to the body of knowledge on climate change.
At the time, several representatives of key House select committees also pushed for declassification on grounds beyond the impacts to U.S. national security: “Information about the likely impact of climate change in other countries should be made available to help those countries prepare and direct their resources appropriately.”
The power of climate intelligence
Reports generated by intelligence agencies like the NIC and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) help predict specific vulnerabilities of various regions around the world – like which cities are most at risk from flooding or which agricultural zones may soon face extreme heatwaves. If made available to all nations, this information could help governments and humanitarian organizations take proactive steps, design better policies, and protect these more vulnerable populations.
Unfortunately, classified reports like the 2008 NIA are still shrouded in secrecy- in part, at least, to maintain strategic U.S. advantage. Intelligence officials who worked on the report, like Fingar, maintain that the 2008 NIA should remain classified because it calls out countries most vulnerable to climate change: if specific countries were named in the report, what would stop them from using it to press the U.S. and other developed countries to provide additional aid and assistance for climate-related threats?
But this argument is moot given the level of climate intelligence already out in the open. Specifically, the NIC released a National Intelligence Estimate in 2021 that names two specific regions and 11 countries as particularly vulnerable to climate change through 2040. It predicted that these countries – Afghanistan, Burma, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Iraq – will experience climate-related and exacerbated events that will strain governments and civil societies.
Despite the age of the 2008 National Intelligence Assessment, it is imperative that this report is declassified to complement the already available climate data. In interviews with other former top intelligence officials, we heard the 2008 NIA is “far superior” to the 2021 NIE and could potentially provide a better roadmap for countries to mitigate against the worst impacts than the available data does.
Why developing countries suffer the most
It is troubling that much of this intelligence remains classified and out of reach for policymakers, scientists, and citizens alike in places where the impacts of climate change are being felt most acutely.
Take, for example, small island states in the Pacific, which are already seeing the impacts of sea level rise yet remain unsure of how quickly these changes will accelerate or what measures they can take to mitigate future risks. Similarly, countries in sub-Saharan Africa, where agriculture is heavily dependent on climate conditions, face the double threat of droughts and unpredictable rainfall patterns.
At-risk nations have limited capacity to produce or analyze their own climate data, and access to accurate global climate intelligence would enable them to understand shifts happening in their regions and to secure funding for adaptive infrastructure.
The case for climate transparency
U.S. national security concerns must be weighed against the global nature of climate change, which affects all nations regardless of geopolitical standing. By withholding key climate data, wealthy countries are not only perpetuating environmental inequality but also undermine global efforts to curb the impacts of climate change. Providing developing nations with the same level of climate intelligence that wealthier ones receive would enable them to make better-informed decisions, prioritize resources, and act more swiftly in response to emerging climate threats.
Trump’s aid cuts make Malawians more vulnerable to climate change
Declassifying the 2008 National Intelligence Assessment could also strengthen regional cooperation between mentioned nations, which developing countries may increasingly look to as the current Trump administration continues to withdraw from previous environmental international commitments, including the Paris Agreement and the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. As the United States abdicates its responsibility as a global climate leader, countries like China and India will most likely step up – and developing countries may choose to rely more heavily on them as a partner in mitigation and adaptation measures.
Climate change is a global issue that demands a coordinated response. If certain nations hoard climate intelligence, they not only hinder the adaptation efforts of developing countries but also undermine the collective action necessary to lessen future climate impacts. The sharing of climate data can foster trust and collaboration, enabling countries to work together to create a more resilient global climate framework.
The post Hidden cost: How keeping climate data classified hurts developing countries appeared first on Climate Home News.
Hidden cost: How keeping climate data classified hurts developing countries
Google’s Carbon Credit Expansion with Frontier’s $33M Bet on Rock Weathering
Carbon credit auditors suspended for failures in sham rice-farming offsets
Oklo Advances Its Nuclear Reactor Licensing Despite $73.6M Net Loss
-
Climate Change10 months ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Carbon Footprint12 months agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Farmers turn to tech as bees struggle to pollinate
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Clouds now contains plastic, contaminating ‘everything we eat and drink’